Author: Edupulapati Akshay, Alliance University
To the Point
The Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, makes a big difference in how waqf properties, which are Islamic charity endowments, are run and managed in India. This law has caused a lot of legal and political debate because it changes the way waqf is registered, gets rid of the idea of “waqf by user,” requires certain qualifications to create waqf, lets non-Muslims sit on waqf boards, and gives the Central Government more power to control waqf. Many groups have challenged the Act in court, and Muslim groups, state waqf boards, and opposition parties have protested against it because they think it violates the rights of minorities and religious freedom.
Use of Legal Jargon
Some of the legal arguments against the Act are “essential religious practices,” “the basic structure of the Constitution,” and “judicial review.” The petitioners have made claims based on Article 14 (equality before the law), Article 25 (freedom of religion), Article 26 (the right of religious groups to run their own affairs), Article 29 (the right of minorities to defend their interests), and Article 30 (the right of minorities to set up their own institutions). The concepts of “arbitrariness,” “reasonable classification,” “ultra vires,” “federalism,” and the “presumption of constitutionality” are all important to the case. The Supreme Court turned down an interim stay, but it did stress the judicial barrier for statutory review and the presumption in favour of legislative competence. But it put a number of troublesome parts on hold until the government did something else.
The Proof
A lot of writ petitions have been sent to the Supreme Court. Members of Parliament, such as Asaduddin Owaisi and Mohammad Jawed, state waqf boards, and civil society groups are among the petitioners. The Kerala State Waqf Board, for instance, says that the new law is unconstitutional, unfair, and goes against secularism. Many people are angry that “waqf by user” is no longer available. This puts thousands of informal endowments at risk. Also, only Muslims who have been practicing Islam for five years can create waqfs, and non-Muslims can be on waqf boards and councils. It is said that these changes go against long-standing Islamic traditions and rights that are protected by law. This would make religious groups less independent and put the Constitution’s federal nature at risk. The Union Government has defended the changes by saying that a Joint Parliamentary Committee talked about them for a long time. They say that the changes are needed because they would make things more open and accountable. But the way laws are made and what happened after that have caused protests and made many people think that the government is going too far.
Abstract
This paper critically examines the constitutional, political, and religious implications of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, encompassing the current Supreme Court case and national discourse. The Act’s features, which were meant to make property management more modern and open, have made people very worried about losing religious freedoms, minority rights, and the secular nature of Indian democracy. Petitioners contend that legal restrictions on the management, classification, and administration of waqf holdings contravene essential religious practices and infringe upon the rights of minorities to self-govern, as delineated in Articles 25 and 26. The paper analyses the balance between regulatory reform and minority rights through the examination of relevant legislative provisions, constitutional law, and the political landscape, while also discussing the evolving nature of judicial review in twenty-first-century India.
Case Laws
There are a number of Supreme Court cases that have influenced the argument. The Shirur Mutt Case (1954 AIR 282) was important because it limited what the state could do and what religious activities were required. S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994 SCC (3) 1) set the basic ideas of secularism and federalism. The All Saints High School case (1980 AIR 1042) protected the property rights of minority institutions. Courts protect religious freedom, as shown by the recent case Waqf Board of Tamil Nadu v. State of Tamil Nadu (2022 SCC OnLine SC). The current group of petitions, Asaduddin Owaisi v. Union of India (W.P.(C) No. 269/2025), directly challenge the Amended Act on constitutional grounds. The “basic structure” theory came from the Kesavananda Bharati case. It is an important part of deciding if Parliament is violating constitutional rights.
Conclusion
The Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, is a law that has an impact on politics, religion, and the law. Its constitutional future will have an impact on India’s commitment to secularism, the rights of religious minorities, and how well the central government and the states work together. The Supreme Court’s decision will not only settle a disagreement between lawmakers, but it will also set limits on how much the state can control religious endowments, how far minorities’ rights can go, and how much judicial review can protect democratic plurality. This historic lawsuit’s decision will have a big impact on waqf and what religious freedom and equality mean in India.
FAQ
Q1: What are the main changes that the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 makes?
The Act changes how waqf property is registered, gets rid of “waqf by user,” requires waqf founders to be Muslims for five years, and lets non-Muslims serve on waqf boards.
Q2: What are the constitutional issues with the Act?
Petitioners contend that the Act violates principles of equality, minority rights, and religious autonomy as specified in Articles 14, 25, and 26, along with the fundamental structural concept, thereby threatening the disenfranchisement of Muslims and the erosion of secularism.
Q3: What is the Supreme Court’s temporary stance?
The Court didn’t stop the whole Act because it thought it was constitutional, but it did stop some parts of it until rules could be made and more hearings could be held.
Q4: What previous cases are influencing the current lawsuit?
The Shirur Mutt case (important religious activities), S.R. Bommai (secularism), and current petitions led by Asaduddin Owaisi and other waqf boards are all very important.
Q5: What does this mean for democracy in India?
The lawsuit will help find the right balance between reform and the rights of minorities. It might also set new standards for religious freedom, secularism, and federalism in India.
